“SHARIA-FREE AMERICA” BILL IGNITES FIRESTORM IN D.C.
Here’s a paraphrased version of your article, under 250 words and divided into seven paragraphs:
Rep. Chip Roy’s introduction of the “Preserving a Sharia-Free America Act” immediately ignited a fierce political debate in Washington. Supporters called it a necessary measure, while critics warned it violated constitutional protections and targeted religious freedom.
The bill seeks to bar entry and allow deportation of foreign nationals who promote Sharia law as a governing system. Roy framed it as a national-security measure, but legal experts and civil rights groups argued that distinguishing ideology from religion would be nearly impossible in court.
Supporters defended the proposal as a modern extension of post-9/11 security logic, aiming to prevent the importation of legal systems that conflict with American law. Roy emphasized the bill as a defense of U.S. constitutional principles.
Civil rights advocates and Muslim organizations condemned the bill, calling it discriminatory and inflammatory. Legal scholars highlighted potential violations of the Establishment Clause, noting that targeting religious legal traditions could breach First Amendment protections.
Political reactions were sharply divided. Hardline conservatives praised Roy for addressing ideological threats, while moderate Republicans worried about legal and political backlash. Democrats criticized the measure as legislative grandstanding that risks a constitutional crisis.
Practical enforcement concerns also arose, as U.S. immigration officials cannot legally question individuals about their religious beliefs. Experts warned that attempts to do so could provoke both domestic and international consequences, including extremist propaganda.
Despite the backlash, Roy’s office remains defiant. Grassroots supporters applauded the bill, while opponents staged protests and online campaigns. The proposal has turned into a broader debate over the balance between national security, religious freedom, and constitutional law, highlighting the tension between ideology and civil liberties in U.S. immigration policy.